zimmerman

[East_TN_Patriot]

I disagree that the Tea Party is a failure; it's only a failure if the only measurement of "success" is a complete clearing out of every RINO/PROGRSSIVE/NEOCONSERVATIVE in government.  I would submit that, with VERY rare exception, the only members of the current Congress that are worth a damn at all are candidates that were found, vetted and supported by Tea Party groups across the country and often done in opposition to the party establishment.
 
Has it made a real difference? No...but in these cases the lack of effectiveness is mostly a result of there being too few of these types of candidates.
 
If you think the Tea Party movement (and make no mistake, it's a movement, not a "party") is a failure how much more so is the Libertarian Party or any other third party?  Historically, what's the best, percentage wise, that the Libertarian party has ever done in a presidential election?  Have they even broken 5%?  How is it that you think they can move to getting at least a plurality of the vote given their track history?
 
I still don't seen anything changing at the ballot box and so far, no one has actually answered my question directly.

Perhaps I don't really understand what your question is exactly, but I think many of us have tried to speak to the issue of using the vote to implement change.

As far as your point about the Libertarians, you're arguement is spurious. The reason they aren't more successful is because so many are so brainwashed by the rhetoric of the two party system, they would rather support a party and the candidates they put forward even if they don't agree with them. As I said before, if even a small portion of the people who are fed up would put their money where their mouth is and vote third party, things would change in a hurry.

Frankly all of this revolution talk people throw forward is ignorant and lacking in imagination or dedication. Essentially people are saying the election process is broken, but they won't try to use it to further change. Basically, people are calling for revolution but don't have the gonads to try to fix things through the ballot box. To be completely honest, I think the real issue is not about liberty versus tyranny. Rather, it's about people being upset that they don't have a government that governs exactly as they would like it to, which includes passing laws to punish people they don't agree with, hence where the Tea Party comes into the picture, but I digress.

I'll stick with the Libertarians, the party that wants to take over the world and leave you alone.

[RobertNashville]

Perhaps I don't really understand what your question is exactly, but I think many of us have tried to speak to the issue of using the vote to implement change.

As far as your point about the Libertarians, you're argument is spurious. The reason they aren't more successful is because so many are so brainwashed by the rhetoric of the two party system, they would rather support a party and the candidates they put forward even if they don't agree with them. As I said before, if even a small portion of the people who are fed up would put their money where their mouth is and vote third party, things would change in a hurry.

Frankly all of this revolution talk people throw forward is ignorant and lacking in imagination or dedication. Essentially people are saying the election process is broken, but they won't try to use it to further change. Basically, people are calling for revolution but don't have the gonads to try to fix things through the ballot box. To be completely honest, I think the real issue is not about liberty versus tyranny. Rather, it's about people being upset that they don't have a government that governs exactly as they would like it to, which includes passing laws to punish people they don't agree with, hence where the Tea Party comes into the picture, but I digress.

I'll stick with the Libertarians, the party that wants to take over the world and leave you alone.

I’m not now nor have I ever advocated “revolution” so I’m not even going to address that part of your post since it really doesn’t apply to me.

I don’t think my question is all that difficult to answer; I think the issue is that no one really wants to face the answer.

 

I asked what makes you (or anyone) think that next ten or twenty elections will actually make a difference; I submit that the only realistic answer is that they won’t make a difference. Different reasons for that can be cited (bad candidates, wrong “party” winning, problems too severe/too far along for there to be time to change things, lack of courage among those elected to actually do what needs to be done, etc.) but the end result is the same…the United States will collapse under the weight of its own government.

There is nothing “spurious” in my simply noting the complete ineffectiveness of the Libertarian Party…facts are facts, as they say, and the Libertarian Party has NEVER been an effective force on the national level (or really the state level for that matter). In 2012, all the third-parties combined garnered just 1.7% of the popular vote (and yes I realize Presidents aren’t elected by the popular vote but I believe the statistics are still relevant to show overall effectiveness/popularity)…of that 1.7% the Libertarian Party's share was .99% of it which, I believe, was the best it has EVER done…a whopping 0.99% of the total…someone color me not surprised!!!

What that number means is that for a Libertarian Party candidate to win the presidency, he would have to move from getting that whopping 0.99% to garnering at least 33.4% for a plurality of the votes…that would be quite a turn-around; a 3,394% increase if my math is right this morning.

You call my argument spurious yet you say that “if even a small portion of the people who are fed up would put their money where their mouth is and vote third party, things would change in a hurry.”

Really? A small portion? How is a small portion going to more an irrelevant third party into one that is strong enough that it could have a real impact on the national level? It seems to me it’s going to require a HUGE portion of people who are fed up and would put their money where their mouth is! Moreover, it would take people you just got done saying are “brainwashed by the rhetoric of the two-party system”! How is the Libertarian Party going to take all those brainwashed voters and turn them into lucid, thoughtful little Libertarians? Is there a camp we can all go to that will get our minds straight?  ;)

If there is a spurious argument here I think it’s the argument that the Libertarians can/will ever be anything other than a fringe party.

Your comments about brainwashed voters is also bit insulting. Do you not realize that some of us don’t vote for Libertarian candidates because we simply don’t agree with the Libertarian Party? I’m not a Libertarian, I’m not a Republican; I suppose you could call me a [r]epublican or perhaps more appropriately, a conservative but whatever you call me, I don’t vote Libertarian because I don’t agree with enough of its platform nor have I yet seen a candidate that I would actually want to be in high office…maybe that will change in the future but I rather doubt it.

More to the point and I say again, I don’t believe there will ever be enough men and women elected to Congress or the Presidency who actually have the courage and the convictions to do what truly needs to be done to return this country to its Constitutional boundaries and financial solvency and certainly not enough to do so in time to keep the country from collapsing economically.

I hate being this pessimistic and I literally pray that I’m wrong…but I don’t think I am.

 

I'm fine with you or anyone else sticking withe the Libertarians but when you look behind the curtain I think, with very rare exception, it's all the same gutless, condescending, power-hungry crap politicians we've been getting for most of the past hundred years or so.

[Rightdefender]

My problem with the Tea Party and the Republicans is this...

I was a member of the Brentwood tea party group and attended all the meetings.

We went to hear Marsha Blackburn speak.  Several Tea Party groups were there. After she left we opened the floor for discussion.  Several ideas of how we could work to make a change were expressed. When it was my turn, I told the group that after getting out of the service in 1968 (active duty) I found myself unhappy with the political nature the war had taken on. I joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War. I attended marches and protests, many of them and had learned how the left worked. I suggested that we might learn from them.

The moderator rebutted by saying "as Christians" we were held to a higher power and could never lower ourselves to their level. Then there was the Move on groups and all the dirty tricks the left thrown into our faces. We never lowered ourselves.

The Tea Party and Republicans  both got played by their own self righteousness.  

By insisting on being a "Christian" group they alienated so many people who otherwise believe as we do. We've allowed the left to trick us into taking on the abortion fight again and now civil rights while they are free to undermine all of us and make this country into the third world good neighbor they've always wanted.

All of a sudden Republicans want to welcome the Hispanics in.  A little late, the left  might just as well  have given them life time memberships into the Democratic Part by showing them they could stay forever for free.

By the way, those very demonstrators I watched in the late 60's are now our Government.

Other than this I'm all for the Tea Party.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Rightdefender

[RobertNashville]

My problem with the Tea Party and the Republicans is this...

I was a member of the Brentwood tea party group and attended all the meetings.

We went to hear Marsha Blackburn speak.  Several Tea Party groups were there. After she left we opened the floor for discussion.  Several ideas of how we could work to make a change were expressed. When it was my turn, I told the group that after getting out of the service in 1968 (active duty) I found myself unhappy with the political nature the war had taken on. I joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War. I attended marches and protests, many of them and had learned how the left worked. I suggested that we might learn from them.

The moderator rebutted by saying "as Christians" we were held to a higher power and could never lower ourselves to their level. Then there was the Move on groups and all the dirty tricks the left thrown into our faces. We never lowered ourselves.

The Tea Party and Republicans  both got played by their own self righteousness.  

By insisting on being a "Christian" group they alienated so many people who otherwise believe as we do. We've allowed the left to trick us into taking on the abortion fight again and now civil rights while they are free to undermine all of us and make this country into the third world good neighbor they've always wanted.

All of a sudden Republicans want to welcome the Hispanics in.  A little late, the left  might just as well  have given them life time memberships into the Democratic Part by showing them they could stay forever for free.

By the way, those very demonstrators I watched in the late 60's are now our Government.

Other than this I'm all for the Tea Party.

If you are looking for any group to be the "perfect group" I suspect you are going to be looking for a very long time.

 

So what if the "moderator" said they were a "Christian group"? He/she was just a person with an opinion with no more value than any other; why would you care what that moderator "insisted" on?  If that moderator didn't like your idea I'd bet there were people there who did and if they didn't I'm sure there is a Tea Party group around who would....I'm also sure that some Tea Party groups are dominated by "Christians" and others aren't; find one that isn't it that's what it takes for you.

 

I've gone to Tea Party gatherings to hear what people have to say but I sure don't take orders from them nor do I expect them to take orders from me or even agree with me.

Edited July 21, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest ThePunisher]

As to the Tea Party, I can only say that they have been pretty effective in their short time of existence. They've been demonized by the Libtard commies, the Occupy Wall Street group, the Repblicans, the Liberterians and other groups afraid of what they stand for. I don't believe that makes them a spurious group, but only a group with ideas, and patriotic ideals that many people in this country identify with. For the Tea Party to be feared so much by these groups, to me, it seems this is a movement that can gain momentum and get some changes done where only establishment powers are ruining our country.

This is a time in our country where we need a unifying movement to get behind to save our country, and I believe that currently the Tea Party is that movement we need to counter the liberal/commie takeover of the country. Will there be a willing and large enough number of people to unify behind the Tea Party? We will see in 2014 and 2016, and I don't believe I have to say what will result from the consequences of not unifying together to take back our country. Edited July 21, 2013 by ThePunisher

[Chucktshoes]

I'll step in here as the one who will split the difference between RN and ETP. Like ETP, I don't believe it is right to use the government to tell somebody else what to do but like RN, I don't believe that the electoral system is going to fix anything. The reason (imo) why is that "right" or "left" most people in this country think that using government force to force their will upon others is a perfectly acceptable manner in which to conduct business. That's why large "L" Libertarians and other liberty minded groups have never amounted to much in elections. Real liberty and freedom is far too radical for a people accustomed to authoritarian rule such as we have here in the US. Edited July 21, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[DaveTN]

I'll step in here as the one who will split the difference between RN and ETP. Like ETP, I don't believe it is right to use the government to tell somebody else what to do but like RN, I don't believe that the electoral system is going to fix anything. The reason (imo) why is that "right" or "left" most people in this country think that using government force to force their will upon others is a perfectly acceptable manner in which to conduct business. That's why large "L" Libertarians and other liberty minded groups have never amounted to much in elections. Real liberty and freedom is far too radical for a people accustomed to authoritarian rule such as we have here in the US.

The votes are split between those that want the government to support them and provide free health care, and those that want smaller government and more jobs.

One group is rock solid with only one candidate to vote for while the other group is split between parties and candidates. Kinda obvious what’s going to happen there.

[Chucktshoes]

The votes are split between those that want the government to support them and provide free health care, and those that want smaller government and more jobs.
One group is rock solid with only one candidate to vote for while the other group is split between parties and candidates. Kinda obvious what’s going to happen there.

If it were really that simple, I'd be voting (R) but it isn't, and I think it is stupid to pretend that it is. I don't think you really believe it is that simple either. Whatever disagreements we have, I don't think you are stupid.

Democrats and republicans may differ on how one should spend their money, but they both want to tell folks how to live their lives. Edited July 21, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[Rightdefender]

See right there is the problem in a nutshell. Democrat's and Republic's differ on how they should spend THEIR money. They have No money . It's time we stated taking OUR money back.

[JAB]

We all know the two major parties aren't looking out for our interests nor are they going to change, but when it comes to Election Day, virtually everyone runs to the polls and votes for one of the two major parties anyhow. When anyone suggests a third party, like the Libertarian Party, nobody will vote because "they can't win."

 

Not only that but if you suggest that you might vote for a third party, they get all butt-hurt that you would dare to vote for someone other than the 'big two' and start crying about how you are just wasting your vote, how you might as well be voting for (whichever candidate they don't like - ironically, people from both parties use that tired, old argument) and how all the popular kids are going to laugh at you if you don't go along with the crowd.  What they refuse to see is it doesn't matter if a significant number of people voting for the third party prevents 'their' guy from winning because 'their' guy isn't really any different from the 'other' guy, anyhow.

 

Funny thing is, those who argue that a third party 'can't win' (which, as you pointed out, is a self-fulfilling prophecy until enough folks stop believing that bullcrap and have the cajones to try voting for someone other than heads or tails) are kind of making the other point I am arguing - that voting is, essentially, useless because neither of the big two are going to make any, significant improvements and any third party candidate who might (or might not) make improvements has no chance of winning.  Once, again, bread and circuses.

Edited July 23, 2013 by JAB

[RobertNashville]

Not only that but if you suggest that you might vote for a third party, they get all butt-hurt that you would dare to vote for someone other than the 'big two' and start crying about how you are just wasting your vote, how you might as well be voting for (whichever candidate they don't like - ironically, people from both parties use that tired, old argument) and how all the popular kids are going to laugh at you if you don't go along with the crowd.  What they refuse to see is it doesn't matter if a significant number of people voting for the third party prevents 'their' guy from winning because 'their' guy isn't really any different from the 'other' guy, anyhow.

 

Funny thing is, those who argue that a third party 'can't win' (which, as you pointed out, is a self-fulfilling prophecy until enough folks stop believing that bullcrap and have the cajones to try voting for someone other than heads or tails) are kind of making the other point I am arguing - that voting is, essentially, useless because neither of the big two are going to make any, significant improvements and any third party candidate who might (or might not) make improvements has no chance of winning.  Once, again, bread and circuses.

Is the argument that voting for a third party is throwing your vote away a tired, old argument?  YES

 

Is voting for a third party throwing your vote away? YES

 

I would be VERY happy to vote for a third party candidate (assuming he/she is worth my vote) just as soon as said third party can rationally explain/demonstrate how they are going garner enough votes to knock off candidates from the two major parties because they most certainly going to have to do something very different than they've been doing.

 

As I noted above, in the last (2012) election, all the third-parties combined garnered just 1.7% of the popular vote with the Libertarian party getting 0.99% of the total.  For the Libertarian (or any other third) party to win a presidential election they are going to have to win at least a plurality of the votes cast (approximately 33.4%) which is one hell of an increase compared to their track record so far.

 

So, until the Libertarian or whatever third party can show me how they are going to do that the "throwing your vote away" is still a valid assessment.

[mikegideon]

I look at it this way... If you manage to elect a great politician, odds are slim to none that he will accomplish anything great. If you elect a bad politician, odds are nearly 100% that he will accomplish something bad. Voting is a defensive move.

Edited July 23, 2013 by mikegideon

[JAB]

Is the argument that voting for a third party is throwing your vote away a tired, old argument?  YES

 

Is voting for a third party throwing your vote away? YES

 

I would be VERY happy to vote for a third party candidate (assuming he/she is worth my vote) just as soon as said third party can rationally explain/demonstrate how they are going garner enough votes to knock off candidates from the two major parties because they most certainly going to have to do something very different than they've been doing.

 

As I noted above, in the last (2012) election, all the third-parties combined garnered just 1.7% of the popular vote with the Libertarian party getting 0.99% of the total.  For the Libertarian (or any other third) party to win a presidential election they are going to have to win at least a plurality of the votes cast (approximately 33.4%) which is one hell of an increase compared to their track record so far.

 

So, until the Libertarian or whatever third party can show me how they are going to do that the "throwing your vote away" is still a valid assessment.

 

Perhaps, but voting for the same old same old from either of the big two is also, IMO, throwing your vote away.  Since (as we have already agreed) we are beyond the point that the outcome of elections will really change anything, any vote is more or less a 'throwaway' vote.  As you say, the third parties haven't proven that they can fix anything, either, but then they really haven't been given a chance.  Since the big two have proven, unequivocally, that they are only going to continue to eff things up worse - meaning that voting for the same, old crap means throwing my vote away - then I figure I had might as well vote for the guys who at least haven't already proven that they suck.  Therefore, to my mind, while voting is more or less a waste of time no matter which candidate you are voting for, at least voting for someone who hasn't already proven that they want nothing more than to screw us over seems a little less like throwing my vote away than voting for one of two sides who have both already stabbed us in the back so many times that we should be feeling like pin cushions by this point.

 

People want to insist that we 'have' to vote for one of the big two and then they wonder why nothing changes.  Correct me if I am wrong but isn't doing the same thing, over and over, while expecting different results one definition of insanity?  Of course, the same could probably be said about bothering to vote, period, but I am just stubborn enough that I will keep doing so.

Edited July 23, 2013 by JAB

[TMF]

I look at it this way... If you manage to elect a great politician, odds are slim to none that he will accomplish anything great. If you elect a bad politician, odds are nearly 100% that he will accomplish something bad. Voting is a defensive move.

Yep, it's a matter of whether you want to get punched in the face or kicked in the balls. One of the two is going to happen whether you like it or not, so best to have a say in what you don't want rather than what you do. Getting kicked in the balls is way worse than getting punched in the face. Obamacare and the potential for sweeping anti-gun legislation in 2015, depending how things go in November... that is a big old kick to the mail sack.

[ted]

If I were Mr Zimmerman if be thinking about leaving the country before the NAACP and the feds linch him. He's innocent but what does that matter to this administration?

it's all about gun control and using the blacks as a pawn and thay don't even realize what's going on why else would the gov get evolved . http://www.decodedscience.com/roderick-scott-the-black-george-zimmerman-acquitted-of-murder/33569

[Jonnin]

If you are looking for any group to be the "perfect group" I suspect you are going to be looking for a very long time.

 

So what if the "moderator" said they were a "Christian group"? He/she was just a person with an opinion with no more value than any other; why would you care what that moderator "insisted" on?  If that moderator didn't like your idea I'd bet there were people there who did and if they didn't I'm sure there is a Tea Party group around who would....I'm also sure that some Tea Party groups are dominated by "Christians" and others aren't; find one that isn't it that's what it takes for you.

 

I've gone to Tea Party gatherings to hear what people have to say but I sure don't take orders from them nor do I expect them to take orders from me or even agree with me.

 

Its not one moderator.  The entire movement has a high christian membership (which is fine, I am also a christian) with a large number (more than 50% at a guess) who do NOT understand the value of keeping religion out of government at all costs.   Many of the TP candidates would dearly love to legislate morality.  Not all of them, it varies by group and region and state etc, but many.   Rather than keeping it simple and cleaning house with a basic platform of small govt, low taxes, jobs and economy, they drag abortion, gay marriage, and other extremist morality ideas into their platform which scare away too many voters.    I agree with the TP on most issues that are not morality inspired, and am happy to vote for their guy if their guy is not insane, but I can't fully identify with the hard core TP movement so long as these issues remain.  More of a libertarian, but like the TP, the libertarians have driven away some folks with their pro-drugs stance.

[Chucktshoes]

Yep, it's a matter of whether you want to get punched in the face or kicked in the balls. One of the two is going to happen whether you like it or not, so best to have a say in what you don't want rather than what you do. Getting kicked in the balls is way worse than getting punched in the face. Obamacare and the potential for sweeping anti-gun legislation in 2015, depending how things go in November... that is a big old kick to the mail sack.

The Patriot Act and the GWOT along with the resultant accelerated rise of the police state seems like a pretty damn big kick in the balls to me.

A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. - Lysander Spooner

[TMF]

The Patriot Act and the GWOT along with the resultant accelerated rise of the police state seems like a pretty damn big kick in the balls to me.

Well I'm sure we can debate which president did what and when, and as to what the negative effect it had on our rights, but we could go all the way back to the second president and everyone since and find something. I'm not convinced that the concept of GWOT is the problem, just the execution. The patriot act is a different animal, and a shining example as to why we shouldn't knee-jerk to a situation. Of course, in 2000 no one could have predicted what September 2001 had in store for us. In 2008, Obama made very clear what his goals were and he made good on it. Less than two months after being reelected he made the biggest push against gun ownership than any president, ever. We knew before he was elected that would be the case. We knew it.

Then we could get into the out of control spending and anti-business policies of the dems, but the results of such are self evident. Maybe we would end up here eventually if we had nothing but republicans in the White House, but I can damn sure tell you we wouldn't be in the situation we're in right now if Romney had been elected. 2015 will be a very interesting year if the dems take it. I almost wish they would so Americans could see the destruction their votes can bring, but then again, Detroit crumbles as we type and somehow those idiots can find a way to make it seem like 60 years of dem rule has nothing to do with their situation.

[Rightdefender]

personally I'd like to see something like say the first four people who were able to get two million signatures on a petition would be the candidates and funding would come directly from the government each one getting the same amount of money and not be allowed to take money from anyone else that way the playing field would be level giving the common citizen arial chance of serving.

[Rightdefender]

I'm sure that's probably naive but in my opinion the two party system is dead on arrival

[Guest nra37922]

personally I'd like to see something like say the first four people who were able to get two million signatures on a petition would be the candidates and funding would come directly from the government each one getting the same amount of money and not be allowed to take money from anyone else that way the playing field would be level giving the common citizen arial chance of serving.

two million legal citizens maybe, and the dead don't count.

[No_0ne]

Dave,

 

I've never suggested such an action is a 'good thing', nor that it will lead to something better, or even as good as what we have now...  Only that contrary to our normalcy bias, the risk of a successful insurgency is very well within reach of our current situation.  We're much more likely to end up with a Stalin, or Mao than we are another Washington.

 

I don't have a crystal ball, and the truth is nobody knows what things look like on the other side of this type of singularity event.  If history is any guide, the likely outcome of an insurgency would be a stalemate between the sides, and a political 'solution' to bring the conflict to a close, and we've seen just how well that has worked in other parts of the world.  But, again I don't know, and anything I might say is pure speculation.

 

Just because nobody can predict what would happen in the aftermath of such an insurgency/revolution, doesn't mean we can discount the possibility of an insurgency or revolution from within, nor the likely awful bloodshed that is likely to follow any such event.

 

Make no mistake, I hope to never see such a thing come to past, but it's a mistake to think we're somehow special and therefore immune from it happening, or that somehow our government or military is this unstoppable force that nothing including the will of the people can stop.  We've been shown time and time again our military is completely unable to win at 'nation building', every example except for 1 has turned into a complete train wreck over the last 75 years, and trying to do so at home would end up being a much worse failure than any before it.

 

Just curious, what was the 1 attempt that succeeded?  The rest of this thread is way too long and pointless to bother reading anymore...

[Oh Shoot]

Just curious, what was the 1 attempt that succeeded?  The rest of this thread is way too long and pointless to bother reading anymore...

 

I'm guessing Israel. 65 years and counting.

 

- OS

[Guest ThePunisher]

Just curious, what was the 1 attempt that succeeded?  The rest of this thread is way too long and pointless to bother reading anymore...

The Marshall Plan after WW2.

[Rightdefender]

Our military was intended  to fight and kill to protect us and our interests, not be policemen.  I'm thinking  the idea of turning over command of them to the UN for such a purpose is totally wrong. Look at all the tragidies due th that.